Doe pee ?

[BenedictGomez]

BG, that article seems to talk about scrapes with/without any attractant added to them.

I don't think that can be extrapolated to things like hanging scent wicks or running scent trail drags.

I think the hanging of the scent drag on a scrape licking branch is secondary, unless you're suggesting that buck that came grunting the whole way along that scent drag trail was just coincidental to the buck really following that same trail blindly because the scrape was on it's course.

I don't know, I've seen too many guys have too much success with scents to believe they are useless/worthless.

I personally have had little success with them outside of striking curiosity (never an all out, nose to the ground hunt of that scent)...but even with that said, the experiences of others lead me to believe they can be effective given the right conditions, right scent and crossing paths with the right deer.

How many stories have we read of a buck cruising in the distance, which hits a scent dragged trail and suddenly B-lines it right to the hunter.

Your belief is that is shear coincidence?

 

There have been myriad.....many......as in....tons.....of scientific studies on this.   One of the reasons for this, is that unlike most things that are extremely difficult for whitetail biologists to test, this is actually an extremely easy thing that scientists can run repeatable experiments on with solid controls.

 

And the results are the same every time I've seen scientists run the experiment, the bottled urine attractants do not work in any greater mathematical percentage than do the control(s), which is to say, bottled urine attractants are a waste of your money (in fact, in a few studies, human pee works just as well).  I could post roughly a dozen or more studies from biologists which all mathematically come to that same conclusion, and critically,  with solid standard deviation.   This is as clear-cut as wildlife science can get, and it's rare results are so emphatically conclusive.  It. Is. A. Waste. Of. Money.  And I genuinely hope my posting may save some people from flushing their hard-earned cash down the toilet.

[BowhunterNJ]

What are the controls in these instances? And are these wild, free roaming deer or pen raised?

 

Do you have any links to any studies highlighting this? I'd like to read them as I am curious.

 

Regarding human urine, I've cammed scrapes peeing on scrapes and had good results.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bowhunter444]

Used a buck bomb today had 4 different bucks come in including a nice 7pt that made a scrape in front of me and one I put an arrow through that was bigger than the 7pt. Unlucky for me I hit branch I didn't see and deflected arrow into paunch. So gonna wait till tomorrow and hopefully Darren can come down with his dog and track him.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[BowhunterNJ]

Oh man good luck in the am Ken. Hopefully he's down and Darren can help you locate him!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bowhunter444]

He's definitely a dead deer don't think I pushed him so hope he bedded within a couple hundred yards gonna be real cold so should be fine there.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Haskell_Hunter]

There have been myriad.....many......as in....tons.....of scientific studies on this.   One of the reasons for this, is that unlike most things that are extremely difficult for whitetail biologists to test, this is actually an extremely easy thing that scientists can run repeatable experiments on with solid controls.

 

And the results are the same every time I've seen scientists run the experiment, the bottled urine attractants do not work in any greater mathematical percentage than do the control(s), which is to say, bottled urine attractants are a waste of your money (in fact, in a few studies, human pee works just as well).  I could post roughly a dozen or more studies from biologists which all mathematically come to that same conclusion, and critically,  with solid standard deviation.   This is as clear-cut as wildlife science can get, and it's rare results are so emphatically conclusive.  It. Is. A. Waste. Of. Money.  And I genuinely hope my posting may save some people from flushing their hard-earned cash down the toilet.

 

I'll wait here as you post all of the links to those scientific studies.

 

"...this is actually an extremely easy thing that scientists can run repeatable experiments on with solid controls."

 

I don't think so.  You're saying that wildlife provides solid controls?  On something that is seasonal?  Affected by weather patterns?

 

Show me the data and the studies.  I expect links to studies like the ones on this page:  http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/bearpolicy15.htm

 

Shouldn't be too tough to pull together.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Haskell_Hunter

[BenedictGomez]

What are the controls in these instances? And are these wild, free roaming deer or pen raised?

 

Do you have any links to any studies highlighting this? I'd like to read them as I am curious.

 

Regarding human urine, I've cammed scrapes peeing on scrapes and had good results.

 

Controls vary by study.  Some that come to mind are: absolutely nothing, water, salt water, ammonia, and human pee, to name a few.  Most studies are wild as there's no reason to use the same deer for something like this.  Ozaga's studies are enclosed deer, but it's massive enclosure > a typical deer's range.  If you GOOG you'll find some.  I probably have at least 6 or 7 just in the books/mags I own as the science of deer hunting interests me.

[BenedictGomez]

I'll wait here as you post all of the links to those scientific studies.

 

"...this is actually an extremely easy thing that scientists can run repeatable experiments on with solid controls."

 

I don't think so.  You're saying that wildlife provides solid controls?  On something that is seasonal?  Affected by weather patterns?

 

Show me the data and the studies.  I expect links to studies like the ones on this page:  http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/bearpolicy15.htm

 

Shouldn't be too tough to pull together.

 

I've posted some that I copied before on NJH, I'd be happy to find them and post them for you this weekend, and maybe find some others if I can turn them out.  From the above post though (and I'm not trying to be condescending), it doesn't sound like you know what a "control" means in science.  The wildlife would never be the controls in an experiment like this, the wildlife would always be the "subjects" in the experiment.  The control has to be either a variant for the tested subject and/or the absence of the tested subject. Very boring, I know, but it's important.

[Haskell_Hunter]

I've posted some that I copied before on NJH, I'd be happy to find them and post them for you this weekend, and maybe find some others if I can turn them out.  From the above post though (and I'm not trying to be condescending), it doesn't sound like you know what a "control" means in science.  The wildlife would never be the controls in an experiment like this, the wildlife would always be the "subjects" in the experiment.  The control has to be either a variant for the tested subject and/or the absence of the tested subject. Very boring, I know, but it's important.

 

I am a researcher.  I have a very good grasp of controls and scientific studies.  Send me the links, I have no problem getting into the weeds with them.

 

Controls are as many things that you can "control".  With wildlife, you lack a significant amount of controls you would otherwise have in a lab.  That's why most wildlife studies aren't solid science.  You need to be able to repeat them as well as have other peers (hence the term "peer-reviewed") repeat the experiments with the same controls and uncontrollables.

 

I'm also good with data and statistics.  That's where I'll spend most of my time after understanding how each study was set up.  Ironically, most researchers have a very poor grasp of statistics and their studies usually break down there under additional scrutiny.

 

Send away, I'm ready to feed SPSS some data.

[smoking gun]

yes they work just Cuz it doesn't bring in deer everytime doesn't mean it doesn't work maybe a buck is locked down with a doe or hes elsewhere they do travel this time of year they can be 2 miles up the road.I've killed bucks nose to the ground on tinks buck bomb and James Valley they do work

[Palawman30]

yes they work just Cuz it doesn't bring in deer everytime doesn't mean it doesn't work maybe a buck is locked down with a doe or hes elsewhere they do travel this time of year they can be 2 miles up the road.I've killed bucks nose to the ground on tinks buck bomb and James Valley they do work

Pete

Anyone who has hunted for any real amount of time will say that scents can and do fool thousands of bucks every single year across the country.

Do they work every time? Of course not but then again so does everything else!

That's why it's called hunting.... scent is just another arrow in the quiver.

Some guys bait, some don't, some guys use scents, some don't,

I know that how I hunt is very effective... for others it may not be.

[smoking gun]

agreed 100% ^^^^^^